Arthur

Remakes are similar to the circus: you know what you're getting, but wonder what will be unique this time around?

Every time someone mentions that a remake is coming out - which seems to be happening more and more these days - the first thing I think of is Jesus. Well, not Jesus himself but more Jesus as in films about Jesus. Every film about Jesus is a remake. The earliest one being King of Kings from Cecil B. Demille, up to the most recent being The Passion of the Christ from the violent imagination of Mel. The point is that the story of Jesus is the same every time, but depending on who is telling it, whether it be Gibson and his violent/beautiful version, Scorsese's version about Jesus the man and not the God or Cecil's silent version; it is still the same story. Jesus is a great man, persecuted and then murdered but succeeds admirably. When you remake a story about Jesus, the director or Producers walk in to a room and provide a pitch for their film. Their slant, if you will. (I'm sure there are a handful of directors who just tilted their head at the word slant) The word slant is the directors personal view on the story. What is he going go to do that is different from everyone else? Martin Scorsese would say that his film is going to be about Jesus the man instead of Jesus the God. That is a great slant and works for his movie. PROBABLY WHY IT WAS SUCCESSFUL. Arthur is a prime example of the opposite and is probably why it is not that good.

I grade films like I got graded in Elementary School; therefore, this movie gets a C- due to a lack of solidarity in story telling. The audience is intelligent and do not want to be force-fed as if they were five. All I ever ask for as a movie goer is to be entertained and understand the storyline, which is traveling from point A to point B, and if there can be some jokes on the way, I'll be tickled.

Arthur is the story of an heir to royalty, who chooses to drown himself in cognac and bubble baths rather than attending meetings and charities that will benefit his company. The immature actions of Arthur have cost his mother great discomfort and public embarrassment, which in turn cuts him off from all family funds UNLESS he marries the woman of his (nowhere near) dreams. The plot thickens when he actually falls in love with the girl of his dreams and has to make the decision; will he take the money and an unhappy life or the love of his life and poverty?

Now, that sounds like a great pitch, and it is, because the movie is based off of great material, like the above, but in this modern version with Mother Alien lookalike Russel Brand, the paper falls short from the porch. For starters, Russel Brand may be an extraordinary actor but right now he is in a small funk like Paulie Shore. So, a note for my buuuuuudy, I really want to see what you will do in ten years from now and hopefully you do a great rendition of Hamlet instead of Dogberry next time around, but until then I'd brush up on being drunk because you are no Dudley Moore. Personally, it is a problem for me when Nick Nolte is playing a better drunk than you are and he is not even trying. (Note: if Nolte acts like that in Warrior it will be a tremendous comedy)

I found a problem with the character Hobson as well. She seems angry at Arthur for the majority of the movie and then when you realize she actually enjoys his company, she's out of the picture. Pick a side: does she dislike the cat and then fall in love with him at the end of does she like the guy and enjoy the playful sarcastic relationship they have? A choice must be made and unfortunately that choice needed to be made in the writing room, and it wasn't.

On another note, the woman that Arthur is trying to not marry is a terrible person in general. I wouldn't want to marry her either and I sympathize with Arthur (it's only cheap points though) but I don't know if that really helps with the story. This is the first time I have to jump back to the original as a "for instance" but, in the original the woman that Arthur is supposed to marry is just like the rest of the society that Arthur can't stand; this aristocratic universe full of snobs. In our 21st Century retelling, she is a diabolical witch who wants to take over the company for her own personal agenda. Nobody would like that, first of all, and secondly you don't find out she wants the company for herself until the end. That is just poor story telling. That character is not developed. In the words of Bill Cosby, "It needs more time to cook".

The characters and story are not developed due to poor writing, and you can't blame the original concept because that film is great. The original Arthur had around ten scenes being ten minutes in length at most and this remake has twenty scenes all three minutes in length at most. The original played off of Dudley Moore being one of the top ten screen drunks and Hobson being a sarcastic butler with a heart of gold, while this remake plays off of Russel Brand being Russel Brand and bad a love interest with blonde hair...? I don't know why films today feel a need to write more scenes at shorter length. It doesn't add anything to the story or make it more entertaining.The resolution was ten minutes instead of one minute. It dragged at the end and in my personal opinion I think it needed another draft or three before it hit production. I know why it was made though, someone said Russel is an up and coming star and we must make more movies with him. I feel bad for ya Russel. Get a better agent, and Nolte, stay off the drink.

In the end it all comes back to bad story telling. It is no different than telling the story of Jesus. We know the story. There's nothing new. The question is what can be showed that is unique? Keep the audience entertained, show them something they haven't seen, and if you can whip a little message in there. With this recent remake you have to deal with cheeky performances, lots of production value and good cinematography, but this is no Terrence Malick masterpiece, so don't hold your breath. Today, in Hollywood, you could photograph me taking a dump and it would look fantastic. Just because you spend a lot of money on production value does not make it worth watching. Tell me a good story next time.

In the end, I say, wait til Redbox.

Grade C-